But then on second thought, I think maybe I’m gonna celebrate a step in the right direction, thank those who DO support my marriage, and continue fighting for anyone who is still excluded. Including you racists who think marriage is a white middle class thing.

I think some of us have lost track of what we used to stand for. Whatever happened to respecting other people’s choices and this novel concept of live and let live?

Just for the record, I’m a genderqueer, and my partner and I will both be wearing suits.

You are right. I should just use my own name as self-definition and make my own vocabulary. In other words, realise that any form of collective politics is useless and that as long as I disagree with anybody else I will be tagged as Superior.

Thank you for letting me know once again I stand alone and have nothing in common with anybody else.

Every bisexual activist I know is quite up in arms over the words Lesbian and Gay. We’ve got a lot to fight, but two words really rile folks up, “Lesbian and Gay”. With one marriage battle, it could effectively erase an entire category of people. I do not want to be a Lesbian and I do not want to be Straight, I AM Bisexual. My marriage will be bisexual by nature as there’ll be at least one bi in it.

I guess somebody’s going to have to start reclaiming fag, because when queers start yacking about getting married the word is no longer meaningful.

Well, Nossie, I guess you win the More Radical And Queer Than Thou Award of 2008! Seriously, though – I’m not sure why you think “queer” is null and void if a claimant of said label might get married. I wasn’t aware that “queer” implied an onus to live up to or believe in any particular set of beliefs.

Hearing people who consider themselves radicals and queers – you know who you are – jumping on the marriage bandwagon instead of rejecting any association turns this into a short-circuiting stance. You are either against marriage or for it and I find it very difficult to understand the point of criticising the institution theoretically only to support it practically.

You know who you are? As if the “you” are in hiding or shame? Or perhaps you think they should be?

Anyhow, there’s such a thing as nuance. Don’t pretend that you’re all pure and non-hypocritical in every political stance you possess; frankly, I don’t believe in political purity, don’t think it’s possible, and don’t even really think it’s an ideal stance.

I guess I’m one of those queers who knows who they are (though I don’t actually label myself as “radical”) because I criticize the institution of marriage and the LGBT community’s overemphasis on it and yet understand why many people might want to or even need to get married. Some of those rights and privileges guaranteed by marriage are no joke and some people are genuinely in need of them. Of course those rights should not be tied to legal marriage but until we succeed in separating them, I’m not going to expect everyone to make sizable sacrifices and take significant risks in order to avoid looking hypocritical. And yes, if I was planning on having children with someone I might consider getting married if it were my only way of accessing those rights. I’m not gonna lie or posture just to earn my Radical Queer Card As Distributed By Nossie. If I was having kids, and marriage is what it took to protect them and me and my partner’s rights around them, yeah, I might go there.

. Since I can no longer identify with queer and its “we don’t want to offend anybody even though we think it’s the wrong choice and we might even do it ourselves eventually” I’m looking for a word I can adopt and politics I can call my own. Anybody has some to spare?

It’s not about not offending anyone; it’s about not pretending that I know what’s good for everyone else or that I can push some pure political stance on everyone else without being able to offer any viable solutions.

If you’re looking for a new word, how about Nossie, since then you won’t have to worry about anyone but yourself failing to meet your high standards? Or maybe just Superior?

I can only say I am going through one of my typical (non-?post-?trans-?) identity crises again. Homosexual I never was, gay is all about complacency and queer has been co-opted. I now use queer purely as an umbrella word. I guess somebody’s going to have to start reclaiming fag, because when queers start yacking about getting married the word is no longer meaningful.

There is a difference between not wanting to marry and refusing the institution altogether. But if you are against the institution of marriage YOU HAVE TO deny the choice for everybody else! It’s like saying you are against partisan politics and voting for Obama because “the country is in need”.

I’m constantly reminded of Ellen when she talked about Lawrence King on her show and how she said “you know I am not a political person” and then goes on and on about how awful the death is and ends her speech asking viewers to vote consciously for anti-homophobic candidates in the elections. First, they’re all homophobic. Second, you cannot say you are not political and then ask somebody else to vote. Don’t you intend to vote yourself? Do you want people to do the dirty work for you? Third, this IS a political issue indeed! Lawrence got killed for political reasons.

This is what happens when your entire political vocabulary is a mess! (And all of our political vocabulary is a mess right now because it’s been rendered useless…) This is what allows us to define ourselves as anarcho-syndicalists while saying we want to get married at the same time! (Those tax breaks are mighty convenient…)

Being pushed into a corner is what I’m used to. It only forces me to be more creative. Since I can no longer identify with queer and its “we don’t want to offend anybody even though we think it’s the wrong choice and we might even do it ourselves eventually” I’m looking for a word I can adopt and politics I can call my own. Anybody has some to spare?

In watching the coverage of same sex marriages, I have thought, “If this is the face of gay marriage, it’s very sweet.” In other words, these are the “right kind” of gays, and it has passified my feelings a lot.

I’m sure that kind of comment will deeply offend you and your readers, since I’m sure you will think appeasing people is at best moot, and nauseating at worst. I’m sorry; I’m trying to be open, and work through my thoughts honestly.

In any case, I absolutely agree that any and all benefits, financial or otherwise should be awarded to everyone. Whatever our sexual orientation, we should all get the same tax breaks. In fact, since marriage is a religious institution (again I’m sorry, those words probably make your skin crawl) it really shouldn’t be endorsed by the state at all.

I enjoy your writing, thanks.

As for:

Blended and extended families; single parents; close friends, siblings, or senior citizens serving as primary caregivers to each other

would it be too radical to include single people as if their lives were as valid and deserving of the same respect as anyone else’s?